Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:51:43 +0800 From: White Knight <white_knight@2ch.net> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The kern.ipc.somaxconn limit revisited. Message-ID: <204daedda1bf2a9a647f15fe97b5cbcc@2ch.net> In-Reply-To: <40010d0d47a24789523d90623b15da30@2ch.net> References: <ddc130c96b7b76ed22fb582b701a86f4@2ch.net> <CAJ-Vmo=MKz7s6VWBUpjOY16J4KVv-hj3oQX4JOEvP2Do%2B9A5UQ@mail.gmail.com> <40010d0d47a24789523d90623b15da30@2ch.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2015-10-13 01:32, White Knight wrote: > On 2015-10-10 02:47, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> I think it's worth upping to an int type, so we can eventually up it >> to > 64k. >> >> Please do submit diffs for revie.w :) > > I'll work on the patch this week, thank you. I have submitted a bug report, with a patch for review, at https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203922 I chose the arbitrary limit of 1431655765 in order to prevent an overflow (on systems where u_int is 32bit). I'm somewhat unsure if my changes to struct xsctp_inpcb are ok. Is it better to use the reserved fields? And if I don't, like in my patch, is it better to shorten the reserved fields accordingly? I decided not to touch other parts of the netstat formatted output, mostly to keep the patch short and to the point. Please comment and let me know what else needs to be changed. Are there other userland programs that touch the xsocket and xsctp_inpcb interfaces than netstat? -- White Knight I'm not from 2ch.net, I just work there.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?204daedda1bf2a9a647f15fe97b5cbcc>